Determinism.....

[Ryft]

Am I right [that] you think the will is determined, maybe from the beginning of time, but the individual is free because he is acting on his will? If the will is determined [in this sense], then how can you blame someone for doing what they do when they couldn't have done any differently?

Because they could have done differently, as you put it. Theirs is not a physical inability but a moral one. As pastor John Piper put it, "Physical inability would remove accountability. Moral inability does not." You are wrestling with a very old dilemma from which came the heresy of Pelagius (5th century; see also Erasmus vs. Luther, 16th century), a dilemma that was answered just as long ago by Augustine with a response that still rings forth today. Although Jonathan Edwards expounded on this at great depth (see Freedom of the Will), the matter was clarified perhaps no more succinctly than this statement from Arthur Pink: "By nature [man] possesses natural ability but lacks moral and spiritual ability. The fact that he does not possess the latter does not destroy his responsibility, because his responsibility rests upon the fact that he does possess the former" (The Sovereignty of God, pg. 154). We have the natural faculties to understand the commands of God and natural ability to keep them. "Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem: he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness."

When a thief tries to justify his action, he is demonstrating that he knows very well that stealing is wrong; he is attempting to define an exception, which shows he accepts the rule. He knows the difference between right and wrong and has the ability to choose. He committed theft not because he was incapable of doing otherwise but because he wanted to and chose to, despite knowing that theft in itself is wrong.

Why is it that someone does action X instead of Y?

Because their desire for X was greater.

Would you agree that for an action to be free and morally responsible it can't be determined (nor random) and so must go through a thought process?

You are making the case for 'compatibilism' (although at this point you may not realize it), which I concur with. In order for an action to be free, it cannot be determined or causally necessitated from without. And in order for an action to be morally culpable, it cannot be random. But an action is both free and morally culpable if it is determined from within (i.e., causally necessitated by one's character and desires, or "must go through a thought process"). This is the compatibilist model of Christian doctrine. "The moral quality of the deed, considered in itself, is rooted in the moral character of the subordinate agent, acting in the circumstances and under the motives operative in each instance" (Benjamin Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, pg. 20).

[To EvidenceVsFaith] Would you also agree it is quite a dangerous view?

Extremely dangerous.

As for me, I would say the end doesn't always justify the means ...

Same here, and for so many reasons, not least of which is the all too obvious fact that the end is beyond our knowing! The end cannot justify the means when the end is incapable of being known. The problem that inheres in consequentialist theories is that it does not help us decide the moral value of the consequent: (i) if an action is said to have the value of its consequent, (ii) and we do not know the value of the consequent, (iii) then we cannot know the value of the action that produced it. And the value of the consequent must be accounted for, not assumed, because it is a logical fallacy to beg the question.

---

Yet moral relativists who subscribe to "the ends justify the means" would argue that the end result was the best possible, and so invalidates any "morality" associated with the means of getting there.

And they would argue thus in vain. Since the end cannot be known, the means cannot be justified. See the syllogistic analysis I presented to Solarwave. (Consider how this plays out with respect to your moral dilemma: Although saving the 100 people at the expense of the baby's life seems morally preferable, the consequentialist is incapable of knowing that the baby was actually going to become the person who found the cure for AIDS; i.e., had he saved the baby instead, it would have resulted in the saving of countless more than a mere 100 lives, an extraordinarily greater good. His choice was actually the immoral one, and he had no idea.)

Moral absolutists would say that killing the baby is an immoral act, and you cannot balance immoral acts with a lot of moral acts. ... Moral absolutists would not be able to make the decision, since both roads lead to immoral decisions.

True, both options are immoral. But where do you get the idea that moral absolutists never choose immoral options? What I mean is, although both options are immoral that doesn't mean the moral absolutist is incapable of choosing one over the other, committing what he knows to be an immoral act (either way).

---

Maybe Hitler was just doing God's work. I certainly don't think this. I am simply offering up an idea.

I do think this—but in the same sense that Sennacherib, the Assyrian king, was doing God's work (Isa. 10:5-16; cf. 2 Kings 19). However, I also think that the Allied forces who defeated Hitler were also doing God's work.

"The LORD works out everything for his own ends—even the wicked for a day of disaster" (Prov. 16:4); "When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?" (Amos 3:6). "See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to work havoc" (Isa. 54:16). "Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?" (Lam. 3:37-38). "When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other" (Eccl. 7:14). "He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them" (Dan. 2:20-21). "For there is no [governing] authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God" (Rom. 13:1).

And so on.

[theblindferrengi]

@ solarwave: it has nothing to do with first breath, it is when the baby is physically severed from its mother (umbillical cord) it becomes independent, and therefore alive on its own. Unitll then, it is no more alive than your hand is.

[solarwave]

Because they could have done differently, as you put it. Theirs is not a physical inability but a moral one. As pastor John Piper put it, "Physical inability would remove accountability. Moral inability does not." You are wrestling with a very old dilemma from which came the heresy of Pelagius (5th century; see also Erasmus vs. Luther, 16th century), a dilemma that was answered just as long ago by Augustine with a response that still rings forth today. Although Jonathan Edwards expounded on this at great depth (see Freedom of the Will), the matter was clarified perhaps no more succinctly than this statement from Arthur Pink: "By nature [man] possesses natural ability but lacks moral and spiritual ability. The fact that he does not possess the latter does not destroy his responsibility, because his responsibility rests upon the fact that he does possess the former" (The Sovereignty of God, pg. 154). We have the natural faculties to understand the commands of God and natural ability to keep them. "Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem: he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness."

But you are agreeing the will is determined and so our moral choice is determined somehow.

Here is my problem: Where do our morals come from? Why do we choose to steal rather than not? Isn't the reason I choose one action over another because of how my life experiences have acted on me and given me the thought processes I have. Obviously when I make a choice I think about it and choose based on the facts, values and natural ability I have, none of which I have control over me having. I am given my natural ability at birth, I can only have the facts which are avaliable, and the values I have ether just come upon me (from upbringing) or by following this process again (which is detministic) to choose which new values to pick up. Hope that made sense.

You are making the case for 'compatibilism' (although at this point you may not realize it), which I concur with. In order for an action to be free, it cannot be determined or causally necessitated from without. And in order for an action to be morally culpable, it cannot be random. But an action is both free and morally culpable if it is determined from within (i.e., causally necessitated by one's character and desires, or "must go through a thought process"). This is the compatibilist model of Christian doctrine. "The moral quality of the deed, considered in itself, is rooted in the moral character of the subordinate agent, acting in the circumstances and under the motives operative in each instance" (Benjamin Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, pg. 20).

But what if as stated above the choice from within is determined too? So that from brith none of your decisions could have been made any differently. How can someone be blamed if they couldn't have reasoned out any other action based on the information they had and state they were in.

Im not sure if we are using the same words to mean different things, which may be a problem here.

[Violet]

Saerules: What is it about the first breath of a baby that is so special? Or is it that they are outside the mother? So then is it our location or the ability to breath that makes us a person? It can't be independance since a baby outside is no more likely to survive without its mother than a baby inside the mother.

To be honest I have no idea what I think on this issue.

It's exactly like TBF just said (as far as I can see it anyway). Until the baby can be reckoned as a separate entity from the mother: it is only a part of the mother. If i have the right to cut my hair: i have the right to cut off my left hand: I have the right to stop the growth within my 'womb'.

I am not going to argue this though: people get too butthurt and angry over it.

[solarwave]

@ solarwave: it has nothing to do with first breath, it is when the baby is physically severed from its mother (umbillical cord) it becomes independent, and therefore alive on its own. Unitll then, it is no more alive than your hand is.

Saerules: What is it about the first breath of a baby that is so special? Or is it that they are outside the mother? So then is it our location or the ability to breath that makes us a person? It can't be independance since a baby outside is no more likely to survive without its mother than a baby inside the mother.

To be honest I have no idea what I think on this issue.

It's exactly like TBF just said (as far as I can see it anyway). Until the baby can be reckoned as a separate entity from the mother: it is only a part of the mother. If i have the right to cut my hair: i have the right to cut off my left hand: I have the right to stop the growth within my 'womb'.

I am not going to argue this though: people get too butthurt and angry over it.

Yeah, a baby attatch by umbillical cord is just like hair.

Do siamese twins then have the right to stab the other? I mean cutting your own head (its attached to you so your twins head is yours too) is just the same as cutting off your finger or even hair.... right?

[Violet]

Do siamese twins then have the right to stab the other? I mean cutting your own head (its attached to you so your twins head is yours too) is just the same as cutting off your finger or even hair.... right?

Yes. It is a growth with a sorta 'mind of it's own', kinda like the penis

[littlegrimlin1]

HAHAH, like the penis. It's my body, I do wat I want!! (south park reference lol)

[theblindferrengi]

Siameese twins have every right to get surgically seperated, and it is often done when they are infants, before they can even decide for them selves.

[solarwave]

Yes. It is a growth with a sorta 'mind of it's own', kinda like the penis

Haha!

Siameese twins have every right to get surgically seperated, and it is often done when they are infants, before they can even decide for them selves.

Doesn't answer my question though

[theblindferrengi]

Mutilation has nothing to do with anything here, the simeese twin is part of the other until seperated. Decapitation would be cutting the body off, and it would kill you, cutting off a hand or a fetus would not. You don't cut off a hand or a fetus without reason now. You could kill your siameese twin, but there is no reason. The siameese twin can think for itself so it would be immoral, however a fetus, or even a baby cannot think for itself, so amputating it is perfectly fine. Besides that, a siameese twin is not the host to the other twin, they are both independently functioning, wheras an unborn person is a symbyote, and requires its host.